Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6FB1A87BB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:10:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UokhMIeWZtEL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p01.blackberry.com (smtp-p01.blackberry.com [208.65.78.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7993F1A1A3C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct106cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.206]) by mhs212cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Dec 2014 21:10:49 -0500
Received: from XCT111CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.211) by XCT106CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 21:10:48 -0500
Received: from XMB111CNC.rim.net ([fe80::fcd6:cc6c:9e0b:25bc]) by XCT111CNC.rim.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 21:10:48 -0500
From: Gaelle Martin-Cocher <gmartincocher@blackberry.com>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
Thread-Index: AQHQDyewEeqVo81nB0ShjNtLfXarlJx+j7gAgAAgMwD//7RIMIAAge4A///FiXA=
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 02:10:47 +0000
Message-ID: <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF35455C@XMB111CNC.rim.net>
References: <547511DB.5050100@nostrum.com> <54759A4C.6020806@gmail.com> <5476092D.4010406@nostrum.com> <15EF2452-2C2C-420B-B972-C37EACE57850@apple.com> <547F60A8.3080302@alvestrand.no> <27F838F1-326D-48BD-B553-6FE993E5C34F@apple.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF354465@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <547FA924.3000504@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <547FA924.3000504@mozilla.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/tWmKNjI0RX0Rz0YWu18xb-eTX9k
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 02:10:52 -0000

There was a single hum for the three categories (browser, non-browser, compatible endpoints), right?

That makes a lot of sense for non-browser entities that are in fact WebRTC-compatible enpoints (apps, or gateways or else) to push the burden on the browser vendors as those entities will need to interact with browsers.  Hence "hum"...

I think it would make a lot of sense to have different "hums" or questions for the two different categories.
That will bring clarity on what the "non-browser" yet WebRTC endpoint is, versus what the WebRTC-compatible endpoint is (let aside gateways).
It is not clear to me that we would have had the same results for each category if there was two (or three) different questions.

Gaëlle


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Timothy B. Terriberry
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:22 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document, MTI (again, still, sorry)

Gaelle Martin-Cocher wrote:
> a) How can the group composed by a vast majority of non-browser vendors force a decision on browser vendors against their statements?
>
> b)I don't think there was enough discussion on "non-browser" entities. I believe the two topics (browser/non-browser) should have been separated. There was quite a few objections on a non-browser having to implement both codecs, at the meeting and on the list prior to the meeting.

Let me see if I can follow the logic here. There was a "vast majority of non-browser vendors" making this decision, but the overwhelming consensus achieved in the hum in Honolulu does not demonstrate that objections from non-browser vendors are "in the rough".

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb